Goddam lawyers . . .

(April 30, 2018 at 8:11 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: Goddam lawyers . . .

That's the spirit.

(April 28, 2018 at 7:54 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(April 28, 2018 at 10:26 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: I’m not talking about indictments (and Rev Ryan already addressed this so I’m not sure why you’re asking it again), I’m asking you what you believe.  So, do you believe any of the Weinstein or Roy Moore accusers?  Or, do you think every single one of them is lying to get money?

I cannot draw a conclusion one way or another WITHOUT SEEING THE EVIDENCE, this is what a trial is for, if the accusers testimony stands up under cross examination and there's corroborating evidence, then I'll believe them.

Innocent till proven guilty is supposed to mean something.

No proof was submitted in the Cosby case, if so what was it? All that was provided was inconsistent testimony, not to mention one of the accusers ADMITTED TO LYING FOR MONEY.

But for some reason you don't care about those "little details"...

All the cockamamie shit you accept on testimony alone; on little to no evidence at all, and this is the claim you suddenly decide to become irrationally skeptical about?  Yeah, no bias there at all. 🙄

---

(April 28, 2018 at 10:50 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Huggy can think OJ and Cosby are innocent if he wants, I dont really care.

It does seem like racial bias on your part though, Huggy. If everything was the same except they were white, I don't think you'd be defending them.

Quote:Last I checked OJ was acquitted of murder charges, so he is innocent, if you have evidence proving otherwise...let's see it.

No, lol.  He wasn’t proven innocent. He was found not guilty. There is a difference.  For someone going on and on about our legal system I would have thought you’d understand this.

(April 30, 2018 at 8:03 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: Cosby juror on news today cited Cosby's sworn deposition where he admitted to drugging as what sunk his case.

Cosby's own fucking lawyer fucked him.

Should be a lesson to everyone.

You mean the deposition that was supposed to be sealed?

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/...e-to-light

Quote:The simple answer is that after accusations of sexual assault re-emerged against Cosby, the Associated Press asked the court to unseal the documents and the court agreed.

Legally it's more interesting. U.S. District Judge Eduardo Robreno issued a 25-page memo outlining his reasoning. Here's how he explains it:

— The court's rules state that unless there is an objection, documents filed in the court will be unsealed automatically two years after the conclusion of litigation.

— When the AP filed a request to have the documents unsealed, Cosby's attorneys objected, saying it would violate Cosby's right to privacy by making public, among other things, "intimate knowledge about his sex life." Cosby's lawyer also argued that the release would embarrass Cosby and would violate the confidentiality agreement signed by the two parties.

— Robreno dismissed all those arguments.

— Perhaps the most intriguing part is that Robreno concluded that Cosby should be thought of more as a public servant. Previous courts have held that public servants, or politicians, give up some of the privacy protections afforded to regular citizens or even public figures.

So in order to unseal the deposition the Judge had to perform some serious mental gymnastics in order to portray Cosby as a public servant.

Good thing!

(April 30, 2018 at 8:34 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(April 28, 2018 at 7:54 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Last I checked OJ was acquitted of murder charges, so he is innocent, if you have evidence proving otherwise...let's see it.

No, lol.  He wasn’t proven innocent. He was found not guilty. There is a difference.  For someone going on and on about our legal system I would have thought you’d understand this.

No LFC, you really shouldn't listen to Rev. Rye, he;s leterally been proven wrong (by his own words) in every discussion we've had, which is why he blocked me btw...

You are presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty, that presumption still applies since OJ has not been proven guilty... Got it?

---

(April 30, 2018 at 8:39 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Good thing!

Untill someone decides to violate YOUR rights...

I think what LFC means is this:

The jury did not find him guilty based on the evidence provided. That does not necessarily mean he is innocent. After all, those are merely the opinions of twelve fallible people. Factoring in how the evidence was presented by lawyers, how does it still not surprise people who watch public trials that those watching see the evidence much differently than those on the jury?

Our justice system is imperfect, no doubt about it. But even I highly doubt so many women are going to get together to bring down a man who was loved by all who watched him on television. It makes more sense that he is actually guilty of what they claim than to be a retarded conspiracy nut.

(April 30, 2018 at 8:50 pm)Kit Wrote: I think what LFC means is this:

The jury did not find him guilty based on the evidence provided.  That does not necessarily mean he is innocent.  

Yes, this what I meant. Thank you, Kit.

(April 30, 2018 at 1:54 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I'd be curious to know how many people think Casey Anthony is innocent.

Important to remember that a basic tenet of law is that she does not have to prove herself innocent, the state must prove her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  They failed.

Still.  I agree with Franklin.

(April 30, 2018 at 8:50 pm)Kit Wrote: I think what LFC means is this:

The jury did not find him guilty based on the evidence provided. That does not necessarily mean he is innocent. After all, those are merely the opinions of twelve fallible people. Factoring in how the evidence was presented by lawyers, how does it still not surprise people who watch public trials that those watching see the evidence much differently than those on the jury?

Our justice system is imperfect, no doubt about it. But even I highly doubt so many women are going to get together to bring down a man who was loved by all who watched him on television. It makes more sense that he is actually guilty of what they claim than to be a retarded conspiracy nut.

Case in point, from the article I linked to about the final OJ Simpson Jury, some salient points that could have influenced the jury:

(*) nine of the twelve jurors were black.
(*) five thought it was sometimes appropriate to use force on a family member,
(*) five reported that they or another family member had had a negative experience with the police,
(*) nine thought that Simpson was less likely to be a murderer because he was a professional athlete,

All of these factors were likely to influence the decisions of the Jury. Many liked OJ, some had views on the police that predisposed them to suspect that Fuhrman planted the evidence that led him to be charged, and some may have felt that OJ's rage was, on some level, justifiable.

Well, that and the whole glove fiasco, and nobody seems to be sure exactly how that happened (my guess is the same as Robert Kardashian, that he stopped taking his arthritis medication in the weeks prior to the demonstration and his hands may have swelled big enough that the gloves barely fit).